The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

??? - an organism that is better adapted to its environment with the advantage of more successful reproduction has the right fit for that environment.

And this is why every individual is fit. Those which aren't fit die and don't affect change in species in any way. If they pass on their unfit genes then those individuals expressing those genes also die.

Because of random gene pairings from their parents every individual is most fit under specific ideal conditions that don't exist anywhere at all. But when new conditions arise some fit individuals will be helped and some fit individuals will be hurt. There is no meaningful way to define "fitness" that affects any individual any environment. Yet biologists want to talk about species that don't really exist and if they did the definition is constantly evolving as the population changes. You can't take things apart through taxonomies and put them back together with inductive reasoning when it involves consciousness. All individuals are fit.

 

[rrobs]

Oh my goddess! The bible actually states that canis has always been canis. I cannot wait to find this in the bible. Can you help me find that exact quote. I am so excited.

Well, you better hold on, because here we go. It's gonna be exciting!

Gen 1:24-25,

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
​

The words "kind" in these verses is the Greek word "genus" in the Septuagint.

But it gets even more exciting.

Gen 1:11-12,

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.​

True, these verses are talking specifically about plants, but the principle of seed is there. An apple seed makes an apple tree, a dog seed (dog semen) makes another dog, a human seed (human semen) makes another human, etc.

The word "seed" is used just over 200 times in the scriptures. I would think that one would want to explore all of those usages before making any declaration of what seed is and what it does. Plenty of room for research in any case...at least if we want to be objective and a genuine scholar.

 

[rrobs]

How is it so hard to believe? You already believe something outlandish, a woman coming from a man ( a rib no less), a talking snake?

You are reading an ancient book written to a culture virtually 100% the opposite of yours as if it was written to the modern West. You just won't get the message that way. Do you think God should have explained atom smashers to Moses?

And sorry, but I don't see how someone could poo-poo the scriptures while fully embracing the insane idea that we are here by chance, that untold random (albeit supposedly beneficial) mutations somehow made you and I communicate complex ideas to each other.

 

[rrobs]

Evolution includes myriads of change that no one sees until it's seen.

Well, maybe somewhere a frog is in the process of silently and secretly becoming a dog (or whatever) but I just don't see it yet. When I do, I'll abandon the scriptures. Until then I'm gonna say mating frogs produce another frog, a slightly different frog (evolution within a genus, i.e. different species can arise) perhaps, but a frog nonetheless. No two frogs are exactly alike, but they're all frogs. The same holds for every genus in existence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, maybe somewhere a frog is in the process of silently and secretly becoming a dog (or whatever) but I just don't see it yet.

Thats not how evolution. Nowhere does the theory predict something like a frog becoming a dog.
You have to think, millions of years later after emerging from a common ancestor the great apes are still enough alike that even those us who's hair thinned out still all have a great deal of structural similarities.
Go back even further to find a common ancestor billions of years back and we see some explanation for some pig and horse stuff looking similar and even being able to put into us. Go back even further and that's why we too have traces of dog and daffodil DNA in is. That couldn't have happened without a common ancestor.
But this stuff takes time on a scale that humans just can't fully comprehend.

 

[rrobs]

Thats not how evolution. Nowhere does the theory predict something like a frog becoming a dog.
You have to think, millions of years later after emerging from a common ancestor the great apes are still enough alike that even those us who's hair thinned out still all have a great deal of structural similarities.
Go back even further to find a common ancestor billions of years back and we see some explanation for some pig and horse stuff looking similar and even being able to put into us. Go back even further and that's why we too have traces of dog and daffodil DNA in is. That couldn't have happened without a common ancestor.
But this stuff takes time on a scale that humans just can't fully comprehend.

I know I oversimplified the theory, but you can have billions of years and a frog will still be a frog. There has never been an observation made of a frog becoming anything other than a frog.

Why could God not have made DNA similar for many different genus? There is only so much that can be done with a rather limited number of protean molecules. It should be no wonder at all that the millions of different animals should have similar DNA. The scientific assertion that similar DNA proves common ancestor is just one explanation of the observed phenomenon. A model may or may not comport with reality. I don't see the evolution model as n realistic explanation for the variety we observe in nature. Certainly no more believable than intelligent design.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know I oversimplified the theory, but you can have billions of years and a frog will still be a frog. There has never been an observation made of a frog becoming anything other than a frog.

Think of it like a rainbow. Clearly red is different than violet. Orange is also distinctively different from red. But where exactly does red become orange? Yellow isn't blue, but where do we mark the transitions between yellow and blue with green in the middle?

Why could God not have made DNA similar for many different genus?

Because it suggests common ancestry, not everything being created as-is several thousand years ago.

There is only so much that can be done with a rather limited number of protean molecules.

If god is omnipotent that wouldn't matter and he wouldn't be limited and could make more that can do more.

 

[rrobs]

Because it suggests common ancestry, not everything being created as-is several thousand years ago.

I think the key word here is "suggests."

If god is omnipotent that wouldn't matter and he wouldn't be limited and could make more that can do more.

An omnipotent God is tradition. There are tons of places in the scriptures themselves that show that God does not know everything nor can He do anything He wants. People have free will and God never knows for sure what any one individual may or may not do. God said He would not do certain things, therefore He does have limits. For example, there is a verse that says God can not lie. That is a limitation, so He is not all powerful as tradition avers.

God gave dominion to humans in Genesis (Gen 1:26). God is not "in control." Actually, if you put things together, you can see that Adam transferred his God given dominion to the devil. He is called the god of this world more than once. When he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world because they were his to give, Jesus didn't argue and tell the devil, "you are not in control of this world." He didn't say that because he knew all too well that the devil is "in charge" of this present world.

If it weren't for Christians introducing light into the devil's dark world, this place would be way worse than it is. It would be intolerable, which pretty much describes what happens after Christians meet Jesus in the air. No more Christians, no more light, and the horrors of the Apocalypse begins.

 

[rrobs]

But evolution can be shown to be real by comparing DNA and by comparing fossils.

Evolution is but one explanation for the similar DNA in animals. It is in no way the only explanation however. Another explanation could be that God only needed a limited number of DNA sequences to make the variety we witness in the animal kingdom.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the key word here is "suggests."

No, it's not. It's really not. No one has a crystal ball, but evidence tells a story. Amd when we see genetic similarities in species that don't even share a common cellular structure it really strongly suggest all life is related. If it were created separately then how can you account for these similarities?

For example, there is a verse that says God can not lie. That is a limitation, so He is not all powerful as tradition avers.

He lies anyways. Like how a father isn't supposed to be punished for the sins of the father, but the Bible has many examples of him doing just that. Thou shalt not kill? He's a bloodthirsty murderer.

If it weren't for Christians introducing light into the devil's dark world, this place would be way worse than it is.

The devil is a Christian invention, and the more we've pushed Christianity out of control the better things have been getting. Like no more Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, forcing people to pray to something they don't believe in, and we have more equality, more rights, more freedoms, and more choice in how we live.
The church put Galileo under house arrest. We're far better off they don't have the power or authority to dk that anymore.

 

[rrobs]

I dislike closed mindedness caused by religious fundamentalism.

I know what you mean. It's just like closed mindedness caused by anti-regligious fundamentalism.

 

[rrobs]

You're fooling yourself. I believe that God is involved in how evolution works, I don't believe in random mutations and selection. But I dislike closedmindedness caused by religious fundamentalism.

So it just went from a discussion on DNA in evolution to me fooling myself? How am I supposed to reply to that?

 

[rrobs]

The devil is a Christian invention, and the more we've pushed Christianity out of control the better things have been getting. Like no more Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, forcing people to pray to something they don't believe in, and we have more equality, more rights, more freedoms, and more choice in how we live.
The church put Galileo under house arrest. We're far better off they don't have the power or authority to dk that anymore.

You're confusing the church, most notably the RC with Jesus. Jesus didn't do any of those things. Since Jesus said he was a perfect image of God, then we must try to understand why the OT portrays God in such a bad light. Culture, God's ultimate goal, human limitations and other factors enter into the picture.

As far as more freedom, I'm not in agreement with you there. I was born in the early 1950s and I can tell you without reservation that we enjoyed a lot more freedom back then. I knew we were going down the wrong path when they mandated motorcycle helmets. That was a start to thousands of little things we used to be free to do, but no longer.

And then there's the freedom from death that God promises to his sons and daughters. Freedom from death is not available from following the latest enlightened social imperative. It only comes through Jesus.

Equality? God made me equal to his son Jesus Christ. He did the same for every black man, every Asian, every lesbian, every white supremacist, indeed, every person, no matter how depraved, the same chance to become equal to Jesus when they confess him as their lord and believe the God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10). Apart from that, any equality devised by human minds leads to division and strife. Just look at the streets to see that.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, you better hold on, because here we go. It's gonna be exciting!

Gen 1:24-25,

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
​

The words "kind" in these verses is the Greek word "genus" in the Septuagint.

But it gets even more exciting.

Gen 1:11-12,

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.​

True, these verses are talking specifically about plants, but the principle of seed is there. An apple seed makes an apple tree, a dog seed (dog semen) makes another dog, a human seed (human semen) makes another human, etc.

The word "seed" is used just over 200 times in the scriptures. I would think that one would want to explore all of those usages before making any declaration of what seed is and what it does. Plenty of room for research in any case...at least if we want to be objective and a genuine scholar.

If you think that is exciting you have not seen anything yet. First of all you have it all wrong. It was not one god but three gods that put the earth together. Odin and his two brothers did it silly. Maybe your god was one of the brothers using a different name but it does not change the facts.

As for seeds, recombination's, cross over, epigenetic factors and mutations all alter the new offspring so that it is not exactly the same kind as its parents. Over time and existing in different environments these changes lead to separate phenotypic expressions. It may not be obvious from the parent to the child but the process begins there. I am so glad we got to clear up that confusion for you.

Oh so the seed might not mean exactly the same in every passage of the bible. Oh well that is ok since it should not be taken literally. Appreciate you pointing that out.

 

[rrobs]

As for seeds, recombination's, cross over, epigenetic factors and mutations all alter the new offspring so that it is not exactly the same kind as its parents. Over time and existing in different environments these changes lead to separate phenotypic expressions. It may not be obvious from the parent to the child but the process begins there. I am so glad we got to clear up that confusion for you.

Actually I still think there may still be some confusion. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "kind" of parent, but if we use the scientific use in this context, a child will absolutely be the same "kind" as the parent. If the parent is a dog, the offspring will be the same "kind," i.e. another dog.

The word God used for "kind" in Genesis was "genus." There are many species within any given genus, and as you pointed out, each offspring has slightly different characteristics than its parent's and thus, over time, a new species can arise, but it will always be the same genus.

 

[Bear Wild]

Evolution is but one explanation for the similar DNA in animals. It is in no way the only explanation however. Another explanation could be that God only needed a limited number of DNA sequences to make the variety we witness in the animal kingdom.

Actually evolution is the only explanation that explains why there are similarities between species and differences within species. Putting god in charge requires the explanation for genetic defects, tumors/cancers and other genetic problems that you would think a reasonable god (one without a serous mean streak) would know better. So much for the god proposal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As far as more freedom, I'm not in agreement with you there. I was born in the early 1950s and I can tell you without reservation that we enjoyed a lot more freedom back then.

They would have hooked someone like me up to electrodes and shocked the **** and **** [very literally] out of someone like me, and very likely would have forced sterilized and lobotomized me. Early 50s? That's before Civil Rights. That was before the Stonewall Riots. That's when everyone in public school had to pray to Jehovah. Women at work was ridiculed, and sexual abuse and assaults were casually tolerated. Couldn't challenge the National Pro-America/Capitalism dialogue too much without being branded a commie (which to some degrees is still illegal here). Go to jail for being gay or a cross dresser, have to give up your bus seat to a white person if you're black, sure sounds like great freedom was had.

God made me equal to his son Jesus Christ.

Ya know, it's usually only Satanists, Luciferians, and other Left Handed Path adherents who proclaim themselves in terms that equate themselves to god.
Unless you're a non-Trinitarian, in which case you still aren't equal to the "sinless" Jesus.

Apart from that, any equality devised by human minds leads to division and strife. Just look at the streets to see that.

Yeah, let's look at places that aren't like America. Were are Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, etc., and so on overfilled with division and strife? They're not.
But America, along with other religious nutcase states like Iran and Afghanistan, yup, just look at the streets and we can still see today, thousands of years later, organized religion causes more division and problems than it's worth.

 

[Bear Wild]

Actually I still think there may still be some confusion. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "kind" of parent, but if we use the scientific use in this context, a child will absolutely be the same "kind" as the parent. If the parent is a dog, the offspring will be the same "kind," i.e. another dog.

The word God used for "kind" in Genesis was "genus." There are many species within any given genus, and as you pointed out, each offspring has slightly different characteristics than its parent's and thus, over time, a new species can arise, but it will always be the same genus.

On a single generation level the offspring would be what humans classify as a dog. Given hundred thousands of generations with variation in the environment and it may or may not be a dog in human based classification.
Amazing, god told you personally that kind meant genus. Totally unbelievable considering that the word genus does not appear in the bible, unless it is in your bible next to the word seed.

 

[Valjean]

Every individual is most suited to specific conditions but this doesn't mean every artic wolf likes cold weather. And HEREIN LIES THE REAL CAUSE OF CHANGE IN SPECIES. Arctic wolves that can't stand, can't tolerate or don't like cold weather behave much differently than those which do. If an event wipes out every wolf that is hunting under ideal conditions and spares a few holed up in their dens then the survivors breed an entirely new species. Punctuated equilibrium not "survival of the fittest".

I suspect you don't understand what's meant by fitness. Punctuated equilibrium is survival of the fittest. It's not a new mechanism, just a faster rate of evolution necessitated by rapid environmental change.
Why can't beneficial traits build up slowly in a population? This is a much more common scenario than catastrophes that wipe out most of a population. Catastrophic survival is more a matter of luck than fitness.

Animals don't live and die based on fitness but rather the expression of their genes in behavior through the mechanism of consciousness. This is invisible to homo omnisciencis. We already have the stinkin' answers and don't need no evidence to confuse us.

What does consciousness have to do with anything? How is consciousness a "mechanism?" Consciousness doesn't affect gene expression. Differential reproduction is the main driving force.

Again, where are you getting these strange, unorthodox ideas? Why are evolutionary biologists not aware of them?

 

[blü 2]

I'm suggesting that observer effect and circular reasoning are both largely caused by taxonomies and inductive reasoning.

What "observer effect"? In QM? If so, it seems to be widely misunderstood; you don't need a human observer, you simply need an external interacting element.

And what "circular reasoning" exactly?

It's like when you point out that reality is chaotic but this doesn't appear in journals and is ignored.

For example?

Well, reality also doesn't have abstractions

Just so. But it's full of examples.

nor does any taxonomy of any kind exist in reality.

Disagree. I think it's perfectly fair to observe that uranium is not the same thing as hydrogen. And closer to home, that male is not the same thing as female, whether for animals or plants. While I accept that these examples are chosen and expressed in such form because we think they're relevant, they're still accurate statements about reality, that is, it's true to say uranium is not the same thing as hydrogen ─ and demonstrably so.

The very means we use to think and perceive reality is at odds with reality itself.

Careful ─ having said reality is unknowable, you're now saying you know about reality.

When you point out flaws in interpretation it is shrugged off.

As I said, don't tell me, write a letter to Nature.

When you point out that every argument is circular reasoning everyone goes back to what they were doing.

I've already asked you to clarify this claim.

No. This is not the "history" to which I refer. Perhaps I should have used the qualifier "written" history but I was referring to modern knowledge of any specific person or event.

Ain't no writing in 9000 BCE. (It'll be a major event if that turns out to be wrong.) The earliest examples of cuneiform and hieroglyphics are from the 4th millennium BCE.

They had their own "Theory of Evolution" and it appears to fit observation much better than ours. It is the theory that allowed the invention of agriculture and to a real extent also makes implications about how termites invented agriculture and beavers invented dams.

I recall a scientific survey that concluded many modern species of domestic animals were originally the result of selective breeding in early Anatolian civilization, of which Çatal Hüyük is our prime example.

It suggests that everything we believe is seen from a very poor perspective that supports our beliefs preferentially to understanding the reality of how and why species change.

Essentially the problem is that consciousness is the most important aspect of all life and understanding its nature is necessary to understand our taxonomies.

Again, be careful of using words like consciousness which are ill-defined.

Meanwhile, humans have evolved to think in terms of abstractions. That's how tiny babies move from serial examples of 'dog' to the concept 'dogness' which allows any dog to be seen as such. But as for "consciousness" being essential for understanding taxonomies, nature is full of creatures who discriminate ─ for example, bees that go for particular kinds of flowers and can communicate their finds to their fellows. Do you think each individual bee is "conscious"?